DOT Form F 1700.7

1. Report No.

4. Title and Subtitle

National Evaluation of the New Mexico Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT) System Final Evaluation Report

5. Report Date

July 29, 2005

7. Author(s)

R. Sanchez (SAIC), P. Rodriguez (TranSystems), C. Schweiger (TranSystems), M. Carter (SAIC)

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
1710 SAIC Drive.
M/S T1-12-3
McLean, VA 22102

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-02-C-00061; Task SA61006

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

US Department of Transportation
ITS Joint Program Office, HOIT-1
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered:

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HOIT-1

15. Supplementary Notes

Mr. Brian Cronin (Task Manager)
Dr. Joseph I. Peters (COTR)

16. Abstract

This final report describes the national evaluation of the New Mexico Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT) System. The evaluation methodology assessed twelve hypotheses related to the expected outcomes of CRRAFT. To assess the hypotheses, three types of data collection and analyses were conducted: 1) quantitative measures; 2) surveys; and 3) interviews. The quantitative measures consisted of standard operating performance metrics typically used by transit providers and measurable aspects of the invoicing and reporting process. The changes in those measures before and after CRRAFT were analyzed.
An attitudinal survey was used to obtain user opinions on the impact of CRRAFT on their operations. Interviews were conducted with staff at the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Public Transportation Programs Bureau (PTPB), New Mexico Human Services Department, and the Alliance for Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) to review and discuss lessons learned and best practices with respect to the implementation, operations and maintenance of the CRRAFT system.
Overall, the Evaluation Team found that the CRRAFT system has had a more positive impact on the NMDOT's PTPB than on the transit agencies. Transit agencies generally agreed that the CRRAFT system is useful for tracking ridership and generating invoices/reports for submission to NMDOT. However, the CRRAFT system has presented several obstacles to complete acceptance of the system by transit agencies. Transit agencies that provided a large number of demand responsive trips tended to be dissatisfied with CRRAFT's overall performance. It appears that this dissatisfaction is related to the time required to manually enter trips into the scheduler, and then to reconcile scheduled and actual trips.
The report also presents user opinions about the most useful CRRAFT features, what other features users like to see added, and which features should be improved or changed. A summary of findings table is also provided.

17. Key Words

CRRAFT, New Mexico Transit, Rural Transit, Federal Transit Administration

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA 22161. This document is available to the public at: http://www.its.dot.gov/index.htm

19. Security Classification (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

90

22. Price

N/A